Re: odbc/UnixWare 7.1.1: No Go.

Larry Rosenman writes:

> Can't we do something with atexit or other PORTABLE end stuff?

It's supposed to work transparently for the library user. At least the
_fini can probably be hooked in atexit, but the _init would probably have
to be handled some other way. Maybe some

if (!already_inited)
{
already_inited = 1;
do_init();
}

hooked into one or more functions that the ODBC user would likely call
first (like connect maybe).

>
> I'll look at it for 7.2.
>
> LER
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> On 3/22/01, 10:16:03 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote regarding
> Re: [HACKERS] odbc/UnixWare 7.1.1: No Go.:
>
>
> > Larry Rosenman writes:
>
> > > cc -G -Wl,-z,text -Wl,-h,libpsqlodbc.so.0 -Wl,-Bsymbolic info.o bind.o
> columninfo.o connection.o convert.o drvconn.o environ.o execute.o lobj.o
> misc.o options.o pgtypes.o psqlodbc.o qresult.o results.o socket.o parse.o
> statement.o gpps.o tuple.o tuplelist.o dlg_specific.o -lm
> -Wl,-R/usr/local/pgsql/lib -o libpsqlodbc.so.0.26
> > > UX:ld: ERROR: psqlodbc.o: symbol: '_fini' multiply defined; also in file
> /usr/ccs/lib/crti.o
> > > gmake[3]: *** [libpsqlodbc.so.0.26] Error 1
>
> > This is a known portability problem on Unixware (at least known to me)
> and
> > probably other non-GCC setups.
>
> > > Why do WE define _fini?
>
> > Because we need to 'fini' something, I suspect.
>
> > --
> > Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net http://yi.org/peter-e/
>
>

--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net http://yi.org/peter-e/